Eagle County should deny Whitney Reservoir.

The decision we ask the Board to make

Eagle County should deny Whitney Reservoir

The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners should deny Whitney Reservoir. The modeled alternatives would flood living fen and wetland habitat. The roads, pumping, conveyance and power needed to operate the project would extend disturbance beyond the reservoir shoreline.

Our arguments

• Flooding would permanently convert living fen and wetland habitat. The functioning peat, vegetation and groundwater relationships are the resource the County must protect.
• Dam works, access roads, pumping and maintenance would change quiet, scenery, habitat and public use beyond the waterline.
• Additional water capture threatens the downstream wetlands through Blodgett and the lower valley, aquatic habitat and dilution of existing mine pollution.
• The applicant must meet every approval criterion, including the current necessity, efficient-use and County-benefit tests.

Read the evidence with the argument

The next pages identify the decision rule, show the whole project and map every mapped wetland and potential-fen feature intersecting the modeled flood zones. Each legal ground then connects the applicable test, evidence and importance to a proposed Board finding.

Current Chapter VI governs as of September 20, 2026. The September 15 replacement remains proposed; its counterparts apply if adopted and effective in that form. The code-change section explains the pending hearings and protections to retain.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S03 · S08 · S09 · S11. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Decision rule and crosswalk

The Board decides. Every standard must be met.

The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners is the 1041 Permit Authority under §6.01.07(1). Current §6.03.10 places the burden on the applicant. The Board may deny or impose conditions that ensure compliance; §6.04.01 requires denial or approval with such conditions for a noncompliant project. State §24-65.1-501(4) requires denial when the activity does not comply. A failed criterion that remains unresolved supports denial.

Draft §§211 and 401 preserve the applicant’s burden. Section 211(B) requires denial for any failed Article 4 standard; §211(C) permits conditions that establish compliance with every standard. The Board must evaluate the mitigation actually offered and the harm that remains.

Crosswalk entries identify related protections, not identical language. Current Appendix A lists optional considerations supporting the criteria; it is not a second set of mandatory approval standards.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S06. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The complete project

Whitney’s impact extends beyond the waterline

Colorado Springs Utilities describes gravity pipelines and tunnels collecting from Peterson, Fall and Resolution Creeks, followed by pumping Whitney water up to existing Homestake Reservoir (March 2022 fact sheet, p. 1, S08). The utility’s 2019 draft map shows the broader conveyance concepts (S29). These records establish a connected water system with construction and operating effects throughout the valley.

The argument for denial

Inundation permanently converts habitat. Building and operating the supporting system adds clearing, excavation, road use, visible infrastructure and recurring activity. Those effects can reach wetlands outside the flood line, groundwater connections, wildlife movement and the places people come to enjoy. They belong in the same compliance findings as the reservoir itself.

How both codes reach the whole project

Current §6.03.06 requires the project and impact record, including alternatives and construction/operation effects. Current definitions include systems and related components. Draft §109 expressly includes required support facilities, activities and components, with direct, indirect and cumulative County land-use effects.

How to read the maps

The utility map preserves its draft conveyance routes. The alternative maps use the existing reservoir model and complete archived wetland inventories. They show the modeled dam embankment and mark likely downstream work locations with callouts. Pump-station sites, permanent access layouts and electrical routes await a located design in the public record; the component tables account for their effects without assigning invented locations.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Original project evidence · CSU, 2019

The utility’s wider conveyance concept

Original utility map reproduced by Aspen Journalism, July 17, 2019 (S29). Its draft routes show why collection and uphill conveyance belong in the County’s impact review. CSU’s 2022 fact sheet supplies the later description of tributary pipelines/tunnels and pumping (S08, p. 1).

Evidence: S29 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Construction footprint and retained works

Roads and downstream dam works

The 2019 applicant map locates the four alternative dam axes, Homestake Creek and the existing road (S09, Figure 1, technical p. 3 / PDF p. 11). The maps that follow show the modeled embankment and the downstream side where related work would occur. The effects below are anticipated construction pathways tied to those components.

Apply current wetlands, wildlife, plants/soils, recreation, nuisance and visual criteria: §6.04.01(17)–(21), (11), (14). Draft counterparts include §§406, 411–413, 423, 429–432; §§425–426 also address traffic and road costs. The 2019 drilling-access drawings describe temporary investigation access.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S09 · S27. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The operating system

Pumping, power and maintenance count

Pumping and water conveyance are explicit in CSU’s description (S08, p. 1). Energy supply, service access and maintenance are necessary to operate that system. Their anticipated effects must be assessed through the selected equipment and layout.

Why the operating period matters

Initial construction is only one period of disturbance. Repeated service access, equipment operation, corridor work and repairs can recur over the project’s life. Quiet recreation, wildlife movement, views and property enjoyment must be assessed against that continuing activity.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Four alternatives · unchanged model

All mapped wetlands and fens in the flood zones

The complete inventory overlay places about 81.4 acres of mapped wetlands and potential fens inside every one of the four displayed flood zones. Alternatives A and D intersect four potential-fen polygons; B and C intersect two. This shared habitat exposure strengthens the case for denial across the modeled choices.

¹ Modeled intersection with the union of mapped wetland and potential-fen polygons, with overlapping areas counted once. Pond, river/stream and lake inventory polygons appear for context and are not added to this acreage. Values describe the existing full reservoir presets.

What the maps show

Each map shows the same extent and scale: modeled flood zone; mapped wetlands; CNHP potential fens; mapped ponds, streams and lakes; existing Homestake Road; and the modeled dam embankment. Orange downstream arrows identify the likely toe/outlet/access work vicinity. Work-area boundaries depend on the selected construction design.

Inventory classifications and coverage

All positive-area intersections were checked against the complete September 18 exports: 2,979 CNHP Colorado Wetlands features and 600 Fen Mapping features covering the model area. The four intersecting fen IDs, 3033, 3045, 5490 and 5491, are classified Potential Fen. IDs 3045 and 5491 intersect all four alternatives. Campaign field photographs and observations provide the separate local habitat record.

Method and significance

The overlay intersects the existing 10 m terrain solver’s water-surface triangles with inventory polygons in UTM Zone 13N. Model inputs, depths and presets are unchanged. These are modeled inventory-area estimates. The per-feature register lists every intersecting ID and modeled area (S31).

Evidence: S11 · S26 · S30 · S31. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative A: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative B: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative C: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Modeled flood zone and downstream construction

Alternative D: wetlands and works

Evidence: S09 · S11 · S26 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

The strongest physical-impact ground

1. Destruction of the living fen

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(17): “The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas.” Appendix A directs attention to structure and function, pollutant uptake, extent, species characteristics and diversity, and floodplain function.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 406(C)(3) prohibits significant deterioration of wetlands and riparian areas in the Impact Area. Its express factors include structure and function, filtering and nutrient uptake, extent and vegetation change. Section 307(F) specifically requires a fen assessment; §406(A) requires compliance with the §307 plans.

The evidence and the argument for denial

The full inventory overlay shows wetland and potential-fen habitat in every modeled flood zone, including shared portions of potential-fen polygons 3045 and 5491. Campaign photographs and films document the living fen complex. Permanent inundation would replace peat-forming vegetation and groundwater-fed habitat with reservoir habitat. Federal wetland guidelines recognize permanent flooding as a mechanism of habitat destruction (S28).

EPA describes fens as groundwater-fed peat systems whose natural formation can take up to 10,000 years. Federal mitigation regulations expressly identify fens as difficult to replace. The protected value includes the functioning peat, water regime and biological community accumulated here over time.

Finding supporting denial under either code

A construction condition cannot preserve a fen beneath the modeled reservoir. Any compensation proposal must therefore be tested against the full functional loss and its duration, including failure risk. Counting replacement acres or surviving transplanted plants is not a functional equivalence analysis.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S13 · S14 · S26 · S27 · S28 · S30. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Groundwater and connected hydrology

2. Protect the water that keeps the fen alive

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(16) protects groundwater quality. Appendix A expressly includes aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels, aquifer capacity, aquifer-stream interfaces and well function. Apply this with the wetland standard in (17) and the soil/geology standard in (20).

If the September draft takes effect

Section 406(C)(2) expressly covers recharge, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity, and protects the capacity, function and quality of wells. Section 406(C)(3) protects wetland function. The §307 assessment extends to peripheral and downstream surface and subsurface resources.

The evidence and the argument for denial

Fens depend on sustained groundwater delivery and chemistry. The utility’s project description includes water collection and pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir. The complete analysis must include dam foundations, trenches, pipelines, access works and any dewatering, as well as the inundation area. These works can intercept groundwater or change its connection to the creek and peat.

The flood maps identify direct inundation; the dam and downstream-work callouts identify additional construction exposure. Excavation, trenches and dewatering can interrupt the groundwater that sustains adjoining peatland, extending harm beyond the visible reservoir edge (S27, printed pp. 16 and 32).

Finding and evidence needed

Require seasonal water levels and gradients, groundwater chemistry, peat and substrate profiles, surface/subsurface connections, construction dewatering assumptions, with-project and no-project simulations, and monitoring thresholds. Identify the responsible party and corrective action before damage occurs. Under the draft, compliance with the watershed plans is itself required by §406(A).

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S09 · S12. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Whitney and Blodgett reaches toward Red Cliff

Downstream wetlands at risk

Follow Homestake Creek beyond the proposed dam: a broad wetland landscape continues through the Blodgett reach and lower valley toward the canyon near Red Cliff. Its water connections belong in the project impact area.

Mapped wetland, water and potential-fen categories remain distinct. Evaluate seasonal flow and groundwater changes across this reach, including habitat outside the reservoir flood zones.

Evidence: S26 · S30 · S34. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Downstream wetlands and the case for denial

The damage does not stop at the dam

Reduced flows can lower shallow water tables and shorten the periods when the creek replenishes connected wetlands and side channels. That can leave wetland soils drier, stress willows and other water-dependent vegetation, and shrink the wet habitat that supports wildlife. The timing matters: capturing spring runoff and reducing water during dry periods can harm different parts of the same system.

Fens depend on sustained groundwater that keeps their peat saturated. Where altered creek levels or construction disrupt that supply, wetland plants can change and exposed peat can decompose, releasing stored carbon. Protecting a fen means protecting the water that keeps it alive, including the connections outside its mapped boundary.

Current and proposed protections

Current §§6.04.01(15)–(18) protect surface water, groundwater, wetlands and aquatic habitat; Appendix A includes aquifer-stream relationships and flow-dependent habitat. If effective in its September 15 form, proposed §§307 and 406 expressly require assessment of downstream surface and subsurface resources and protect these functions.

Require matched with-project and no-project seasonal flows, wetland water levels, peat saturation and habitat assessments, including existing withdrawals, spring capture, summer low flows and consecutive dry years. Identify the flow and groundwater connections of each affected wetland.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S27 · S32 · S33 · S34. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Surface water and aquatic life

3. Less dilution can deepen river stress

Current rule

Sections 6.04.01(15) and (18) protect surface-water quality and aquatic life/habitat. Appendix A specifically identifies flushing flows, mine-waste dilution, temperature, sediment, spawning habitat and aquatic food webs.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 406(C)(1) protects flows, hydrology and water quality, including a requirement that pollutant concentrations not increase over baseline. Section 406(C)(4) protects aquatic life and habitat, including off-channel habitat, oxygen, flushing flows and spawning/egg-to-fry survival. Section 408 requires consistency with the identified water-quality and stream-management plans.

Pertinent evidence

Appendix K of the Community Water Plan models a mean May zinc-load reduction requirement of 140.6 kilograms at baseline versus 434.3 kilograms under New Water Infrastructure with historical hydrology. The corresponding additional dilution volume rises from 495.5 to 1,530.3 acre-feet. These are about 3.1 times baseline, holding historical metal loading fixed.

This combined scenario includes 2050 demand growth, a potential MOU infrastructure/operations pathway and Bolts Lake. The May values measure relative ecological risk and mitigation burden under changed flows; they are not additional zinc discharges, annual totals or a regulatory violation finding. The numerical exhibit gives the exact source rows and method.

Why this matters and the finding sought

Evaluate spring capture and seasonal releases separately. Tie enforceable flow and quality commitments to the affected reaches, dry-year conditions and thresholds. An average annual water balance cannot explain a seasonal water-quality failure.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S15 · S17 · S18. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Wildlife and wildlife habitat

4. Keep habitat and movement routes connected

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(18) prohibits significant degradation of terrestrial or aquatic animal life or habitat. Appendix A names migration routes, seasonal range, calving, mating and nesting areas, threatened/endangered species, habitat features and food webs.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 411 prohibits significant deterioration of wildlife or habitat in the Impact Area and requires CPW consultation documentation. Section 310 requires baseline, impact, mitigation and monitoring information, including corridors and seasonal habitat. Aquatic protection also appears in §406(C)(4).

The evidence and the argument for denial

The 2019 applicant report identifies deer/elk winter range and potential sensitive-species habitat (Technical Report pp. 17–19). The campaign’s Valley Floor 1 archive documents repeated moose use of a creek-parallel route across seasons. Public photographs and films record wildlife in the wetland/forest mosaic at risk. Locations are generalized.

Save Homestake reports firsthand encounters with as many as four boreal toads in a single viewing. The assessment that this is uncommon comes from personal experience and Team Toad volunteering. These observations add a human field record of the wetland habitat at risk.

Reservoir inundation removes the existing terrestrial/wetland habitat. Roads, clearing, traffic, lighting and operation can add barriers and disturbance beyond the waterline. Habitat connectivity is itself a protected function.

Finding supporting denial

Submit dated observations, habitat overlays and seasonal-use evidence. CPW consultation contributes expertise; the Board still must make the substantive compliance finding. Protect sensitive species locations in the public record.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Vegetation, peat and soils

5. Preserve the living plant community

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(19) protects terrestrial plant life and habitat from significant deterioration. Appendix A includes vegetation structure, function, species composition, diversity, biomass and productivity. Section (20) separately protects soils and geologic conditions.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 412 protects terrestrial plant communities. Sections 311 and 413 address vegetation evidence and soil/geologic protection; §432 governs revegetation and invasive species. Fen vegetation also falls within the watershed and wetland analysis.

The evidence and the argument for denial

The applicant’s 2019 report describes forest, meadows and wetlands (p. 21). Campaign photographs and modeling show conversion of living fen vegetation to open water and reservoir shore. Its peat-forming plants, substrate and groundwater regime function together; flooding changes that system even if plants grow elsewhere.

The 1994 Homestake II decision records competent evidence of predicted wetland degradation and ineffective mitigation threatening rare moss in that earlier project. It demonstrates the legal importance of specific botanical evidence. Whitney’s findings should identify the plant communities and functions documented within its own impact area.

Finding and record

Require seasonal botanical inventory, mapped vegetation communities, peat and soil characterization, hydrologic requirements, and separate evaluation of construction disturbance and permanent inundation. A revegetation plan for temporarily disturbed ground addresses a different impact from permanent conversion beneath a reservoir.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S10 · S11 · S12 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Recreation and access

6. Protect the experience people come here for

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(11) protects the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. Appendix A names visitor days, rafting/kayaking seasons, fisheries, flows and reservoir levels, access, trails, wilderness experience and solitude.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 423 retains a significant-degradation standard for opportunities and experience in the Impact Area. Section 321 requires recreation assessment, including access, boating, fishing seasons and heat closures, trails and wilderness experience.

Pertinent evidence

The applicant’s 2019 report identifies FR703 access to Gold Park Campground, Holy Cross Wilderness trailheads and Homestake Reservoir, and camping, hiking, fishing, boating and wildlife viewing (p. 22). Campaign photographs and modeling depict the existing landscape and its conversion. Assess displaced uses, access closures, noise and operating water levels.

Appendix N reports 85% fewer whitewater boatable days in dry years and 48% fewer in wet years on the Tigiwon-to-Dowd reach in the combined New Water Infrastructure historical-hydrology scenario. Edwards-to-Eagle losses are 9% and 10%. These are modeled flow opportunities for kayaking and rafting, not measured Whitney-only losses.

Why it matters and the finding sought

Require a mapped inventory of access, trails, campsites and use areas; affected seasons and closure durations; flows and operating water levels; and user testimony. Evaluate any proposed reservoir recreation on its actual access, safety, season and operating conditions. Tie the decision to current §6.04.01(11), or draft §423 if effective.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S10 · S11 · S15 · S16 · S09. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

County benefits and local economy

7. Local losses must count in the decision

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(24) requires benefits accruing to Eagle County and its citizens to outweigh losses of natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources, or opportunities to develop them. Section (10) separately protects current and foreseeable local economic sectors; (9) prohibits an undue financial burden on County residents.

If the September draft takes effect

The draft omits an equivalent standalone benefits-versus-resource-loss test. Section 422 still prohibits significant degradation of any segment of the County economy. Sections 419 and 420 address local government services and undue tax burden, with different wording and scope from current law.

The evidence and the argument for denial

The utility fact sheet identifies a broader MOU goal of 20,000 acre-feet of average annual East Slope supply and 10,000 acre-feet of firm dry-year West Slope supply. Those are program goals. The Board needs binding, incremental benefits attributable to Whitney, compared with permanent losses in Homestake.

CROA estimates 2024 Upper and Lower Eagle commercial rafting direct expenditures at a combined $1,513,348 across 9,200 user days. Appendix N documents modeled boating-day reductions under the combined development scenario. Together they identify an existing livelihood pathway exposed to flow changes. They do not yield a Whitney-specific dollar-loss calculation.

Finding supporting denial

Compare enforceable local deliveries, reliability and fiscal benefits against lost habitat, recreation, access, economic opportunity and ongoing management costs. Account for permanence and who receives the benefits and bears the costs. Request restoration of the standalone County-benefit test before adoption.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S16 · S19. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

A current approval standard the draft omits

8. Require demonstrated necessity

Current rule

Section 6.04.02(3): “The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project.” Appendix A identifies reasonable growth projections, local land-use plans and relationships to other providers’ service areas.

If the September draft takes effect

The draft has no equivalent standalone Article 4 necessity test. Sections 303(D) and 331(B) still require need, demand and projection information. That information also matters to feasibility, dependable supply and efficient use, but the omitted necessity criterion cannot be treated as if it remains in Article 4.

The evidence and the argument for denial

The March 2022 utility fact sheet presents Whitney as part of a larger supply program and describes a range of potential storage capacities. A program target and a storage volume do not quantify the specific service-area demand Whitney must meet after existing investments, conservation and reuse.

The current criterion lets the County require a demonstrated relationship between the proposed sacrifice and a reasonable, documented need. Service-area forecasts, demand management and dependable delivery belong in the same comparison.

Finding and decision record

Require measured demand, reasonable growth forecasts, committed supplies, adopted projects, emergency-reserve objectives, conservation and reuse assumptions, and a common reliability standard. Compare a no-Whitney portfolio under the same assumptions. The current application’s alternatives requirements provide the record for this assessment.

Before adoption, restore necessity as an explicit approval standard. If the draft takes effect unchanged, direct the same demand evidence to the standards it actually retains rather than claiming the former test still governs.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Conservation, recycling and reuse

9. Make efficient water use enforceable

Current rule

Section 6.04.02(1): “The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water.” Current §6.04.01(12) also addresses resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling/reuse. Appendix A asks about readily available conservation and recycling to the greatest extent allowed by law.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 434(D) requires planning, design and operation emphasizing the most efficient use of water, including recycling and reuse. It omits the express word “conservation” found in current §6.04.02(1). Conservation remains expressly required in the §331(A)(3) and §331(E) application materials. The same narrower §434(D) wording appeared in July as §435(D).

Why the evidence matters

The proposed system collects and pumps headwater water for additional supply. Demand reduction, lawful reuse and existing-system improvements should be evaluated in dependable acre-feet, timing, cost and environmental effect. The code’s efficiency requirement concerns how the project is actually planned and operated.

Require measured distribution losses, outdoor-demand measures, feasible recycling/reuse, legal limits, seasonal demand, operating losses and the energy implications of pumping. Identify additional savings beyond measures already assumed in the baseline.

Finding supporting denial

Conditions must be measurable and enforceable: the measure, implementation date, achieved savings, monitoring, funding and response to failure. A general promise of future efficiency cannot substitute for a compliance finding. Restore express conservation language in the substantive approval standard before adoption.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S05 · S08. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Supply, drought and operating constraints

10. Test dependable delivery and feasible operation

Current rule

Current §6.04.01(5) requires technical and financial feasibility; §6.04.02(3) requires necessity. Apply the required project, water-supply, cost and operating information to those tests. Section 6.04.01(8) also protects local service capacity; Appendix A expressly considers reductions in water available for future County supply.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 409 expressly requires adequate supplies for current and future operational needs in quantity, quality and dependability. Section 403 requires technical and financial feasibility, including operation, mitigation and monitoring costs. Section 308 requires sources, legal rights, amounts, diversion changes, existing uses and alternative supplies.

The evidence and the argument for denial

The utility’s March 2022 sheet gives Whitney storage concepts ranging from 6,850 to 20,000 acre-feet and describes uphill pumping to existing Homestake Reservoir. Storage capacity, annual deliveries and drought reliability measure different things. The key question is what additional useful water the proposed operation can reliably provide.

Senior rights and governing agreements, refill opportunities, consecutive dry years, evaporation, release commitments, conveyance capacity and power-dependent pumping affect dependable delivery. The same operating model must show reservoir water levels and exposed bed area, which affect scenery, habitat, dust and recreation.

Finding and record

Require an independently reviewable water balance with matched with-project/no-project runs, dry sequences, senior-right administration, applicable agreements, pumping and conveyance limits, environmental releases, refill time and full lifecycle costs. Explain which promised deliveries remain dependable and which rely on conditions that are not secured.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S22. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Construction and operation both count

11. Noise and disturbance continue after construction

Whitney would bring an operating system into a landscape valued for quiet, wildlife and public recreation. Pumps, electrical equipment, access roads and conveyance facilities need recurring service. Noise, traffic, light and repair activity belong in the permit decision throughout the project’s life.

Current rule

Section 6.04.01(21) prohibits a nuisance. Appendix A identifies dust, fumes, glare, heat, noise, vibration, artificial light and traffic. Recreation and visual criteria, (11) and (14), separately protect public experience and scenery.

If the September draft takes effect

Section 429 protects use and enjoyment of property in the Impact Area and existing owners from nuisance. Sections 425–426 address traffic and road costs; §§430, 410, 423 and 431 address dust, air, recreation and scenery. Section 327 requires construction and operation nuisance assessment.

Evidence and likely effects

CSU describes pumping and conveyance (S08, p. 1; S29). Construction introduces equipment, haul traffic, excavation and work areas. During operation, pumps and associated equipment can produce recurring noise and vibration; inspections and repairs add service traffic and renewed work. The field archive documents the present landscape and use (S10).

The Homestake II decision records evidence of noise, dust and tunnel-work effects on recreation and scenery that supported denial of that earlier design (S07). For Whitney, the component tables identify the sources and phases to evaluate against the valley’s existing quiet and uses.

Proposed Board finding

The finding should identify the affected uses, sound and vibration characteristics, timing, lighting, haul/service traffic, closures and maintenance schedule. Assess equipment enclosures, hours and other controls against the actual disturbance that remains.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S08 · S10 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Two distinct standards protecting place

12. Protect scenery and cultural resources

Current and proposed rules

Current §6.04.01(14) protects existing visual quality; (22) protects areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. Draft §431 protects visual quality in the Impact Area; §424 protects the identified cultural-resource areas. Sections 322 and 329 require the associated evidence.

Scenery: pertinent evidence and denial finding

The field views and reservoir model show conversion of the creek, fen and forest setting. Add the visible dam, pump buildings, cleared access, portals and selected electrical works to that view. Full-pool, normal-operation and low-water views should show the complete operating landscape and its effects on existing scenery.

Cultural resources: significance and required record

The Camp Hale–Continental Divide proclamation recognizes Ute relationships and military history in this mountain landscape. These connections give the cultural review its human importance. Whitney’s mapped footprint and associated works must be surveyed for the actual historic, archaeological and cultural resources affected, with meaningful Tribal participation and protected confidential locations.

Flooding, excavation, blasting or road relocation can destroy physical evidence and alter a resource’s setting. Require the relevant surveys, eligibility and significance determinations, effect analysis, consultation record and avoidance/treatment commitments for all facilities.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S08 · S10 · S11 · S21. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Rights, boundaries and jurisdiction

Protect the public-land setting

Save Homestake opposes any change to the Holy Cross Wilderness boundary. The valley’s protected setting and public access must be considered across all facilities and routes, including the conveyance system and recurring maintenance.

Property rights and approvals

Current §6.04.01(1) and draft §404 require necessary property rights, permits and approvals before site disturbance, and allow the Board to defer a decision until outstanding approvals are obtained. Overlay each facility and access route on governing ownership, wilderness and other protected boundaries.

A water right authorizes what its decrees provide; the County’s land-use criteria remain an independent approval requirement. Homestake II upheld denial of a particular noncompliant design while recognizing the cities’ underlying water rights (S07).

Connected effects and geographic authority

Draft §109 defines the Impact Area by likely project effects. Including another political subdivision’s territory under that definition requires a Board intergovernmental agreement for cooperative regulation in both jurisdictions. Document the connected river effects and apply the governing jurisdictional provisions.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S07 · S09 · S21 · S29. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Save Homestake’s proposed findings

The Board should deny each supported failure

The finding must connect harm to the rule

• Identify the governing version, exact section and protected resource.
• Identify the project component, affected area, timing and duration.
• Cite the source, observation, model or expert testimony establishing the effect.
• Explain why the effect meets the criterion’s threshold, including significance where the rule uses it.
• Evaluate the mitigation actually offered and any proposed conditions. Explain the remaining harm or unsupported compliance claim.
• State the resulting failure and decision. One unmet applicable criterion can support denial; the findings should also preserve independent grounds.

A proposed fen finding

Support this finding with mapped impact acreage, functional assessment, duration, mitigation and cited exhibits. Evaluate the displayed alternative and elevation. Modeled consequences can be assessed before a final engineering selection.

Evidence that should accompany the finding

Submit the georeferenced project/fen overlay; dated photographs and generalized wildlife records; wetland, botanical and hydrogeologic assessments; operating water balance and levels; recreation/access inventory; and a mitigation analysis comparing the same functions and time periods. For other grounds, attach the specific water-quality, demand, benefit, nuisance or cultural evidence identified in this dossier.

The Board should state which offered conditions it considered and why they do or do not ensure compliance. Unrelated supply benefits do not erase a failed individual environmental standard in either version.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S06 · S07 · S10 · S11. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Original appendices checked September 20, 2026

Verified river-impact evidence

Whitewater opportunities • Appendix N §6, p. 22

Published total whitewater boatable-day reductions: New Water Infrastructure with historical hydrology versus Baseline. The metric combines kayaking and rafting flow preferences. These percentages are the original analysts’ reported results, not independently rerun simulations.

Zinc • Appendix K Tables 12–13, pp. 21–22

Mean monthly totals for the 2009–2016 assessment, holding historical loading patterns fixed while varying flow. The source narrative p. 9 rounds these to 140→434 kg and 496→1,530 acre-feet. Both comparisons are about 3.1 times baseline. Quantitative climate-change projections were excluded from this metals calculation.

The scenario boundary • Appendix C pp. 9–11

The baseline represents the plan’s 2020 current conditions. NWI-H combines projected 2050 demand growth, one potential MOU infrastructure/operations pathway, and Bolts Lake redevelopment under historical hydrology. These are combined-development results. A Whitney permit record must quantify Whitney’s incremental effects using matched assumptions.

Evidence: S15 · S16 · S17. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Status checked September 20, 2026

Which code governs the decision?

The County’s active-application page supplies the 1041 dates (S03). Staff report p. 8 recommends that replacement rules take effect with the readopted land-use code while current Chapter VI remains fully effective until then (S04). The broader schedule is S23.

A scheduled adoption hearing does not set an effective date. Apply the enacted text and effective-date resolution once adopted. The draft comparison in this dossier is specifically the September 15 text.

Protect the standards during the rewrite

The following section identifies the current tests to retain and the draft’s additional watershed, fen-assessment and whole-project provisions. These code-rewrite requests accompany the separate request to deny a noncompliant Whitney permit.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S03 · S04 · S23. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

What changes if the September draft becomes law

Keep the rewrite strong enough to protect Homestake

Protections retained and strengthened in detail

The draft retains individual watershed, wildlife, vegetation, recreation, economy, nuisance and scenery standards. Sections 307 and 406 integrate flow, groundwater and habitat evidence; §307(F) explicitly names fens. Section 109 includes cumulative County land-use effects and waterbodies beyond federal or state dredge-and-fill jurisdiction, within its definition.

Protections to restore

• Restore current §6.04.01(24)’s County-benefit-versus-resource-loss approval test.
• Restore current §6.04.02(3)’s standalone necessity approval test. Need information remains required in §§303(D) and 331(B), but the Article 4 test is absent.
• Restore the July draft’s §331 alternatives analysis and §434 least-adverse-alternative standard. September still requires configuration justification and alternative water-source information; these are narrower than the deleted tests.
• Restore express conservation in §434(D). Efficiency, recycling and reuse remain substantive requirements; §§331(A)(3) and 331(E) still require conservation information.
• Name fens and their supporting groundwater directly in §406, alongside the fen assessment already required in §307(F).

Preserve the route to a public compliance decision

Draft §§105(C) and 201(B) exempt covered activities that were or will be reviewed and approved through specified County subdivision, PUD or special-use processes. Section 204 permits a finding of no significant impact only upon finding that Article 4 standards will be satisfied without mitigation or through adequate mitigation under other County, state or federal permitting. Section 301(B) permits waiver of irrelevant application materials, not Article 4 standards.

If a revised text is adopted, compare the enacted provisions and effective-date resolution before applying this draft crosswalk. The September 15 analysis should remain clearly dated.

Evidence: S01 · S02 · S03 · S04 · S05. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.

Full sources and pinpoint references

Evidence register 1

Full sources and pinpoint references

Evidence register 2

Full sources and pinpoint references

Evidence register 3

Full sources and pinpoint references

Evidence register 4

Full sources and pinpoint references

Evidence register 5

Downstream map and ecological mechanisms

Evidence register 6

Original legal exhibits

Read the controlling language in context

The following pages reproduce the applicant’s alternative-dam map, pertinent current-code and September 15 draft provisions, the County staff transition recommendation, and Forest Service ecological evidence. They retain the source documents’ page labels. PDF bookmarks connect the analysis and original exhibits.

Project map: the 2019 application’s Figure 1 (technical p. 3 / PDF p. 11) locates the four alternative axes, Homestake Creek and road. It supplies geographic context for the campaign model and downstream construction callouts. The utility conveyance map appears earlier in this dossier.

Current Chapter VI

The attached current-code excerpts include the decision rule, approval criteria and Appendix A considerations. Appendix A assists application of the criteria; its own introduction says these considerations are not additional mandatory criteria.

September 15 replacement draft

The attached draft excerpts include the decision rule, the general Article 4 standards and the additional water-project standards in §434. The proposed provisions apply only if adopted and effective in the relevant form. Definitions and application requirements are linked in the full source S02 and discussed in the analysis.

Transition recommendation

Staff report p. 8 recommends that the replacement take effect with the readopted land-use code, while current Chapter VI remains fully effective until then. This is the staff recommendation, not an enacted calendar effective date.

Ecological evidence

The attached Forest Service pages document vegetation change following sustained fen flooding and explain hydrologic and off-site threats to peatland function. They support the mechanism evaluated in the modeled Whitney impact case.

Evidence: S09 · S01 · S02 · S04 · S27. Full titles and pinpoints in the evidence register.